Professional consensus on UK national statements of best practice for ways of working to deliver orthotic interventions after stroke: an eDelphi study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v58.44360Keywords:
Stroke Rehabilitation, Orthotics intervention, Professional consensus, Best practiceAbstract
Objective: To reach consensus on statements of best practice for ways of working to deliver orthotic interventions after stroke among expert professionals in the UK involved in the delivery of orthotic intervention to patients after stroke.
Design: A 2-round modified electronic Delphi exercise (eDelphi).
Subjects: Thirty-two orthotic professionals with 2 years’ or more experience of delivering orthotic intervention within stroke rehabilitation, from varied geographical locations and experience levels participated in the eDelphi.
Methods: For the eDelphi exercise, 65 statements of best practice were assessed by participants. A 7-point Likert scale was used to determine agreement with statements. A consensus threshold of 75% was pre-determined in line with other studies.
Results: After the first round, consensus was reached for 62 of the statements. All statements had 75% or above agreement. An 87.5% retention rate was maintained between rounds. After the second round 64 statements of best practice achieved 75% consensus.
Conclusion: Overall consensus 94.3% was achieved on the first UK-wide professionally agreed statements of best practice detailing the optimal ways of working when delivering orthotic interventions to enhance rehabilitation outcomes and reduce complications for stroke survivors.
Downloads
References
Stroke Association. State of the nation: stroke statistics; 2018 [cited 2025 Nov 20]. Available from: https://www.stroke.org.uk/stroke/statistics
Feigin VL, Stark BA, Johnson CO, Roth GA, Bisignano C, Abady GG, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Neurol 2021; 20: 795–820.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00252-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00252-0
Richards CL, Olney SJ. Hemiparetic gait following stroke. Part II: Recovery and physical therapy. Gait Posture 1996; 4: 149–162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0966-6362(96)01064-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0966-6362(96)01064-8
Olney SJ, Richards C. Hemiparetic gait following stroke. Part I: Characteristics. Gait Posture 1996; 4: 136–148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0966-6362(96)01063-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0966-6362(96)01063-6
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Stroke rehabilitation in adults: NICE guideline [NG236]; 2023 [cited 2025 Nov 20]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng236
International Organisation for Standardisation. Prosthetics and orthotics Vocabulary (ISO Standard 8549-1: 2020) Part 1: General terms for external limb prostheses and external orthoses; 2020 [cited 2025 Nov 20]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/79495.html
British Association of Prosthetists and Orthotists. Orthotic Treatment: Stroke Rehabilitation; 2014 [cited 2025 Nov 20]. Available from: https://www.bapo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Stroke-Rehabilitation-Poster-FINAL-.pdf
Down K, Stead A. Assistive technology workforce development; 2007 [cited 2025 Nov 20]. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20110107235321/http://www.fastuk.org/fastdocuments/AT_workforce_June2007_v2.pdf
NHS England Workforce, Training and Education. Prsothetics and orthotics; 2019 [cited 2025 Nov 20]. Available from: https://www.hee.nhs.uk/our-work/prosthetics-orthotics
Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. National Clinical Guideline for Stroke for the UK and Ireland; 2023 [cited 2025 Nov 20]. Available from: www.strokeguideline.org
Condie E, Cambell J, Martina J, editors. Report of a consensus conference on the orthotic management of stroke patients. InReport of a consensus conference on the Orthotic Management of Stroke. International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics; 2004 [cited 2025 Nov 20]. Available from https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1572824500354286080
Golding-Day M, Young J, Charlton P, Houston B, Thomas S, Walker M. Orthotist involvement in early gait rehabilitation following stroke: a cross sectional survey of orthotists in the United Kingdom. Prosthet Orthot Int 2025; 49: 298–305.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PXR.0000000000000365 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PXR.0000000000000365
Johnston TE, Keller S, Denzer-Weiler C, Brown L. A clinical practice guideline for the use of ankle–foot orthoses and functional electrical stimulation post-stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther 2021; 45: 112–196.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0000000000000347 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0000000000000347
Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association. The role of the orthotist in the management of stroke: providing ankle–foot orthoses to improve walking and balance in stroke survivors; 2016 [cited 2025 Nov 20]. Available from: https://www.aopa.org.au/documents/item/530
Bowers R, Ross K. Best Practice Statement: Use of ankle–foot orthoses following stroke. NHS Quality Improvement Scotland; 2009 [cited 2025 Nov 20]. Available from: https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/16846/
Golding-Day M, Prince N, Thomas S, Horne J, Thomas L, Walker M. Early specialist orthotic interventions for the lower limb in adult stroke patients: a systematic literature review. J Int Foot Ankle Foundation 2022; 1.
https://doi.org/10.55067/jifaf.v1i9.27 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55067/jifaf.v1i9.27
Golding-Day MR, Whitehead PJ, Walker MF. Orthotic -intervention following stroke: a survey of physiotherapist, occupational therapist and orthotist practice and views in the UK. Int J Ther Rehabil 2022; 29: 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2021.0177 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2021.0177
Jünger S, Payne SA, Brine J, Radbruch L, Brearley SG. Guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med 2017; 31: 684-706.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317690685 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317690685
Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 401-309.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002
Salant P, Dillman D. How to conduct your own survey. Chichester: Wiley; 1994.
https://doi.org.10.2307/3152021
Nasa P, Jain R, Juneja D. Delphi methodology in healthcare research: how to decide its appropriateness. World J Methodol 2021; 11: 116.
https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.116 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.116
Duncan EAS, Nicol MM, Ager A. Factors that constitute a good cognitive behavioural treatment manual: a Delphi study. Behav Cogn Psychother 2004; 32: 199-213.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S135246580400116X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S135246580400116X
Atkins S, Odendaal W, Leon N, Lutge E, Lewin S. Qualitative process evaluation for complex interventions. In: Complex interventions in health: an overview of research methods. London: Routledge; 2015. p. 239-247.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003495642 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003495642
Bradford B. The Delphi method: a useful tool for the allied health researcher. Br J Ther Rehabil 1996; 3: 677-681.
https://doi.org/10.12968/bjtr.1996.3.12.14731 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/bjtr.1996.3.12.14731
Mullen PM. Delphi: Myths and reality. J Health Organ Manag 2003; 17: 37-52.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260310469319 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260310469319
Farmer T, Robinson K, Elliott SJ, Eyles J. Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health res 2006; 16: 377-394.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305285708 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305285708
Silvola S, Restelli U, Bonfanti M, Croce D. Co-design as enabling factor for patient-centred healthcare: a bibliometric literature review. ClinicoEconom Outcomes Res 2023: 333-347.
https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S403243 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S403243
Online surveys. 2025 [cited 2025 May 31]. Available from: https://www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/
Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932; 140: 1-55.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77-101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Health & Care Professions Council. Resources. HCPC -Registrant snapshot - 1 March 2023 [cited 2025 Nov 20]. Available from: https://www.hcpc-uk.org/resources/data/2023/registrant-snapshot-march-2023/
Health & Care Professions Council. HCPC Diversity Data Report 2021: prosthetists /orthotists. 2021; 1-7 [cited 2025 Nov 20]. Available from: https://www.hcpc-uk.org/globalassets/resources/factsheets/hcpc-diversity-data-2021-factsheet--prosthetists---orthotists.pdf
Baker J, Lovell K, Harris N. How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of ’expert’ within Delphi panel techniques. Nurse Res 2006; 14: 59-70.
https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2006.10.14.1.59.c6010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2006.10.14.1.59.c6010
Eddison N, Healy A, Leone E, Jackson C, Pluckrose B, Chockalingam N. The UK prosthetic and orthotic workforce: current status and implications for the future. Hum Res Health 2024; 22: 3.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-023-00882-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-023-00882-w
Bernhardt J, Borschmann K, Boyd L, Carmichael ST, Corbett D, Cramer SC, et al. Moving rehabilitation research forward: developing consensus statements for rehabilitation and recovery research. Int J Stroke 2016; 11: 454-458.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493016643851 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493016643851
Bernhardt J, Hayward KS, Dancause N, Lannin NA, Ward NS, Nudo RJ, et al. A stroke recovery trial development framework: consensus-based core recommendations from the Second Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Int J Stroke 2019; 14: 792-802.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493019879657 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493019879657
Walker MF, Hoffmann TC, Brady MC, Dean CM, Eng JJ, Farrin AJ, et al. Improving the development, monitoring and reporting of stroke rehabilitation research: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Int J Stroke 2017; 12: 472-479.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493017711815 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493017711815
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Miriam Golding-Day, Shirley Thomas, Phillip Whitehead, Jane Horne, Marion Walker
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All digitalized JRM contents is available freely online. The Foundation for Rehabilitation Medicine owns the copyright for all material published until volume 40 (2008), as from volume 41 (2009) authors retain copyright to their work and as from volume 49 (2017) the journal has been published Open Access, under CC-BY-NC licences (unless otherwise specified). The CC-BY-NC licenses allow third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
From 2024, articles are published under the CC-BY licence. This license permits sharing, adapting, and using the material for any purpose, including commercial use, with the condition of providing full attribution to the original publication.
